But typical of what bothers me about elections, as well as employment in general. Being an elderly white man is not actually part of the job. As somebody who mostly navigates with their ears, I would prefer if the debates and ads were all audio, so maybe people would be forced to think about the sense of what they say.

I like Bernie. If he makes the nomination, I’ll vote for him. But seriously, Bernie Sanders doesn’t look in any way like a “person of color” seeing as he’s white enough to be at risk of sunburn under fluorescent lighting.

Whether or not Jewish is a race, ethnicity or culture, he doesn’t look like a POC. He looks like an old white man from the North East, and sounds like one too. Maybe he’s not relatable to people of color. It’s probably best if people of color answer these questions.

I don’t get why folks of colour are decidedly not feeling the Bern. What gives?

Most POC do support Bernie once they are informed about him. It’s still a matter of name recognition. I also think there’s far more support than the corporate media knows. We’re just getting a filtered view of the situation, in my opinion.

More on this: (Obama’s crowds were mostly white up to this point in the campaign)

I think the article makes some good points, but still doesn't grasp our 2015 grassroots dynamic like most of our establishment, corporate media.
There's also a lot of other flaws that border on outright bullshit. For example, the NYT makes a big to-do of the amount of blacks at Sanders' events.
[image] Um, why did they pick 2012 when Obama had much more name recognition? They should be comparing 2007 with his first run against Hillary.
And, what the NYT doesn't mention is that Obama had…

FOLLOWUP:
Part of my response from yesterday: (emphasis mine)
Now today...
Cue yet another massive rally for Bernie Sanders with nearly 30,000 people in a packed stadium except now it's got a diverse crowd mixed with people of color (see below).
Now, some have been questioning my premise that Sanders has a lot of black supporters and other POC. The reason I know he has them is due to the fact that I've been activitely researching the matter by looking at his social media support us…

Because, while her crowds may be mostly white, Hillary did have tremendously more support among black voters than Bernie did.

A poll last month found that that imbalance may be shifting, but it was still something like three-times that of Bernie.

It’s just possible that some people don’t only vote on whether their views match the candidate 100%, but on whether they think that candidate has a reasonable chance of enacting their views. Also, a historically-marginalized voting population may be more attuned to “throwing away a vote.” But I’m just spit-balling here. My only point was that your photo, while possibly representative of Hillary’s main supporters, doesn’t actually address the fact that Hillary is currently the #1 choice for black voters by a large margin.

[quote=“SamSam, post:14, topic:69128”]
Because, while her crowds may be mostly white, Hillary did have tremendously more support among black voters than Bernie did.
[/quote]That’s a product of name (brand) recognition for the most part due to her association with Bill Clinton as First Lady.

This isn’t an insurmountable obstacle for Bernie. As his name recognition grows and word spreads of his past and current civil rights support, he’ll continue to bring in POC.

Noted civil rights leader, academic and author Cornel West will campaign for Bernie Sanders this weekend in Iowa.

Hillary has hollow support. Her record betrays her and her current pandering is only going to go but so far when POC become aware of their better choice in Sanders.

[quote=“SamSam, post:14, topic:69128”]
My only point was that your photo, while possibly representative of Hillary’s main supporters, doesn’t actually address the fact that Hillary is currently the #1 choice for black voters by a large margin.
[/quote]The point is that many pundits have been pointing to Sander’s crowds as some dire problem for him. It’s not.

Also, the polls that pundits are promoting are behind the times and terribly inaccurate. They often focus far too much weight on landlines and don’t properly account for social media (which is vital in 2015). The dynamics have changed, but the corporate media and establishment pollsters aren’t keeping up with those changes.

SamSam:

It’s just possible that some people don’t only vote on whether their views match the candidate 100%, but on whether they think that candidate has a reasonable chance of enacting their views.

As far as electability goes, it’s increasingly more well-known that Bernie will destroy any of the Republicans in the general election in a landslide:

Sanders's strength in general election polling proves that American voters favor progressive and populist solutions.

The corporate media mantras can’t keep up with the truth that’s spreading by word-of-mouth about Bernie Sanders. And, that’s happening with POC via social media, however, the corporate media either doesn’t know about it or just refuses to report on it.

Also, the polls that pundits are promoting are behind the times and terribly inaccurate. They often focus far too much weight on landlines and don’t properly account for social media (which is vital in 2015). The dynamics have changed, but the corporate media and establishment pollsters aren’t keeping up with those changes.

So… you’re both asking why POC don’t support Bernie, and also just holding out hope that maybe they all do support them but it’s faulty polls at work?

Cowicide:

… but on whether they think that candidate has a reasonable chance of enacting their views.

As far as electability goes…

“Enacting” =/= “electability”. But I fear this branch will derail your thread.

I never asked that question. I think POC do support Bernie once they know him. It’s about recognition, etc. – People often don’t support people they don’t know exist. However, that’s a problem we’re tackling via grassroots (offline and online) word-of-mouth that insincere pandering and astroturf campaigns can’t counter over time.

SamSam:

“Enacting” =/= “electability”.

Agreed, and that’s another factor in favor of Bernie Sanders who is surrounded and supported by powerful grassroots organizations all across this nation (and world for that matter) that are acting now and will continue to act during and after the general election as well to fight for progressive causes including civil rights.

and that’s another factor in favor of Bernie Sanders who is surrounded and supported by powerful grassroots organizations all across this nation (and world for that matter) that are acting now and will continue to act during and after the general election

How well did all the many, many grassroots organizations do in helping Obama pass a progressive agenda in his first six years in office, through a block-everything congress?

As much as it sucks, I honestly think you have a chance of getting anything done in Washington by being a political creature. And I say this as someone who scored 98% “like Bernie” in that test of political stances. I’m OK with my “91% like me Clinton” if she actually has a chance of getting more shit done.

… and now this thread is just back to debating the candidates, instead of the original question.

as someone who scored 98% “like Bernie” in that test of political stances. I’m OK with my “91% like me Clinton” if she actually has a chance of getting more shit done.

Don’t the polls suggest that Clinton would do worse in a general than Sanders?

If elected, how would she get more shit done anyway? She’d have the same congress, and if anything I imagine she’d be less inclined to try to get said shit done. And I can’t imagine Clinton getting more bipartisan support.

If she’s the candidate, I still hope she wins, but I’d rather she wasn’t.